Rand Paul is Such a Libertarian He Wants to Ban All Abortion

During an interview with the American Liberty Association uploaded to Youtube on Monday, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) explained why he supports legislation that would declare that life begins at conception and thus ban all abortions.

PAUL: It’s a big issue for me and I tell people that really it’s all about when life begins. You know, I’m a physician. One of the things I would do in my job is to go into the pediatric nursery and I would examine babies that are one-pound babies, looking in their eyes to try to make sure that they didn’t suffer from blindness from being born prematurely.

And the interesting thing is when you’re in the neonatal nursery and you’ve got a one-pound baby, everybody acknowledges that that baby has right. The Bill of Rights applies to that baby and nobody can hurt that baby. It’s a one-pound baby. But a week before, even a full-term seven-pound baby has no rights according to the way people are looking at it, and I think that is a big mistake.

So I’ve introduced legislation called the Life at Conception Act to define when life begins at conception. I’ve also co-sponsored 20-some-odd pro-life bills. I have a 100 percent voting record for pro-life. [...]

I do think its important because, I often say in my speeches, I don’t think a civilization can endure if it doesn’t respect the rights of the unborn.

Rand Paul believes in small government. Small enough to fit inside your Uterus.

Amazingly, civilization in America has endured for decades post Roe v. Wade. Other countries around the world have also managed to endure without banning all abortion as Rand Paul believes we must do.

This pitch for extending the Bill of Rights to apply to Zygotes is a cynical and transparent way of hand-waving the fact that banning all abortion also means jettisoning the rights of women.

And this is why Libertarianism is fundamentally flawed and does not work. You can’t say that everyone and everything has inalienable rights without also taking away the rights of someone else.

Rand Paul has objected to the Civil Rights Act because he believes private businesses should have the right to refuse service to anyone. That inevitably means that minorities and other marginalized groups have fewer rights. And if you declare that Zygotes have rights, that inevitably means that women have fewer rights.

There’s no getting around it without picking and choosing who does and does not have specific rights. But that does not mean that you must be dispassionate or ambivalent. It means you must carefully consider what rights should be preserved over others.

It’s been said that a budget is a moral document and that inside a budget you can find what a society values. This also applies to civil liberties and civil rights. Banning abortion only says you value some rights over others. You’re picking and choosing.

The only way libertarianism works as an ideology is if you don’t pick and choose. But we know that’s not possible. You have to pick and choose or you end up marginalizing those who need the most protection.

It’s not a coincidence that women and minorities are often the losing parties when Libertarians actually enunciate their policy positions because Libertarianism is the province of selfish, privileged, and disillusioned white males. They do not value the rights of women and minorities as much as their own. They pick and choose themselves. Everyone else can just fend for themselves in the Free Market of ideas.

Rand Paul says a civilization that doesn’t respect the rights of the unborn can’t endure, but I’d say a civilization that rejects the idea of collective society can’t endure.

This entry was posted in Abortion, Rand Paul and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • KABoink_after_wingnut_hacker

    Excellent article. What I find most disturbing in the flawed ideology of these anti-choice zealots is that they ignore a key reason why Roe v Wade was fought in the first place.
    I’m old enough to remember news reports of the deaths of women and girls from back alley hacks performing secret abortions, because just like prohibition in the 30′s, the need doesn’t go away, the service just gets pushed underground where it’s lawless and unregulated.

    • WiscoJoe

      Also, don’t forgot that Roe v Wade was largely settled as an issue of privacy. Anyone, like Rand Paul, that claims to want to both protect privacy and outlaw abortion needs to explain exactly how the government (or private security force, or whatever law enforcement mechanism they prefer) would be able to prove that a woman had an abortion or even that she was pregnant to begin with.

  • WiscoJoe

    Future New York Times Magazine headline: “Has the ‘Theocratic Moment’ Finally Arrived?”

  • WiscoJoe

    “The only way libertarianism works as an ideology is if you don’t pick and choose.”

    In other words, libertarianism can only work in theory. The worst thing that could happen to libertarianism is for a libertarian to actually get into power and actually implement their ideas.

    • JMAshby

      In other words, libertarianism can only work in theory.

      I’d say it doesn’t even work in theory if you spend more than a few seconds thinking about it. Typically when I counter a libertaria-esque opinion from a friend or someone I know, its popped off without really thinking about it. When challenged it crumbles.

      • GrafZeppelin127

        I have to second that. The moment you apply even a modicum of thought as to practical application of sundry libertarian “principles,” you immediately find that they are unworkable. And history has shown that no civilization can function on personal autonomy alone.

        • Brutlyhonest

          “The moment you apply even a modicum of thought …”

          There’s the problem.

  • GrafZeppelin127

    This is why libertarians reject the entire premise of, consider illegitimate, and proudly proclaim that they have never studied or even thought about, Constitutional Law. In order to understand the law — and the Constitution — you have to understand that “rights,” whatever they may be and whoever may hold them, cannot under any circumstances be absolute in all circumstances. It is practically impossible for any person to exercise any right of any kind in any way without at least potentially, if not actually, interfering in some way with the rights of others. Studying and understanding the law requires one to recognize that, and to view “rights” objectively rather than subjectively.

    That to me is the fundamental flaw in libertarianism, viz., the inability to view or understand “rights” and the law objectively and being only able to view them subjectively.

    Libertarians and conservatives often confuse “liberty” with autonomy; “freedom” with license. In each case the latter is what they really care about. And they give themselves plenty of convenient excuses to not understand what any of these words really mean. Libertarianism is just an excuse and justification for selfishness and ignorance. Really, that’s all it is.

    • JMAshby

      My thoughts as well, you just put it more eloquently

    • 1933john

      Hear hear!

    • muselet

      Long ago, I decided libertarianism was anarchism without the consistency or intellectual heft.

      I’ve seen nothing that might cause me to change my opinion.

      –alopecia

  • 1933john

    My take on Libertarianism is,
    “Fuck you, I do what I want,
    and that goes for you too”.

  • JoyP

    Rand Paul is a selective libertarian. I also saw my first Ben Carson for President bumper sticker today. An old white guy driving a brand new Buick 4 door.

    • Sabyen91

      I hope it was just a grateful patient…

  • lahru

    The issue I have is I wonder if Republicans such as Rand are either pandering for votes and realize passage of a law to outlaw abortion can never be enacted or really in their hearts hold true to what they say.

    • Churchlady320

      He has no heart or values or morals, so that should help you sort out his position. He’s utterly selfish.

  • Churchlady320

    He’s an eye doc, sort of, and knows NOTHING of fetal development. Sorry Rand – even if it’s a one pound baby, it’s viable, and anything BEFORE that isn’t. Life doesn’t begin at conception. Only biological functioning that can be found in a fertilized chicken egg. And I bet you don’t give up eating ‘preborn chickens’ for breakfast. Do NOT impose your blighted ideas of ‘life’ on the rest of us who actually value that term.

    • Brutlyhonest

      Without modern medicine (there’s that pesky science they deny & hate again), a 1-lb preemie would probably not have survived outside the womb.

  • DetroitSam

    Rand Paul’s certification is as an ophthalmologist, a self-certified ophthalmologist. Bet he can’t name a single hospital the he examined babies in.

    • Brutlyhonest

      “All of them.”